----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Badami" <roy(_at_)gnomon(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk>
To: "Yakov Shafranovich" <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Roy Badami" <roy(_at_)gnomon(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk>; "Dave Crocker"
<dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>; <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to
verify
"Yakov" == Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
writes:
Yakov> Now if all of this is stated in the RFC directly, what
Yakov> exactly is the IPR that is being claimed here? This seems
Yakov> to me explicit in the RFC itself.
I believe that the PRA algorithm, at least in outline, is obvious to a
practitioner skilled in the art.
No doubt about that. Hence the reason I am not at all concern about it.
However, the only way possible a stronger claim can be made if a new
"identity" is introduced that is outside standard or legacy practice. If
this is the case, it would have to be a IETF standardized "identity" before
I begin bothering with it but I won't support it if there is an IPR
associated with it.
I'm sure it's pretty much what everyone does mentally when they read
the headers of a message (yeah, ok, I'm a geek, I assume that everyone
understands the semantics of the headers :-)
Its not so much the "process, method or logic" to get a particular state,
but the natural fact the information is natural available. This is a very
important aspect of the patent process. It is akin to receiving a letter
with no return address or one that is not recognizable, and this claim is
attempting to protect the process of a) opening the letter and b) reading it
to search for something recognizable.
---
Hector Santos, CTO
WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server"
http://www.santronics.com